Advertisement

Neurocritical Care

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 550–558 | Cite as

Development of a Homemade Spinal Model for Simulation to Teach Ultrasound Guidance for Lumbar Puncture

  • Madison Odom
  • Jonathan R. GomezEmail author
  • Kerry Ann Danelson
  • Aarti Sarwal
Take Notice: Technology

Abstract

Background

Spinal procedures such as lumbar punctures (LPs), epidurals, and spinal blocks are essential components to clinical practice but are challenging to teach, learn, or practice on real patients due to patient safety and comfort limiting the number of attempts. Resident physicians traditionally learn these spinal procedural skills through observation of a more senior physician before attempting the procedure. Simulation using models can improve providers’ competency without introducing an added risk to patients. A difficulty encountered with access to simulation training for such procedures is the limited availability of simulators. While there are several high-quality, commercially available models that mimic the anatomy of lumbar spine, the cost of these models often limits the access to students and practitioners. The other challenge is access to simulators with versatility that can be used for palpation as well as ultrasound (US)-guided procedures. A simulator that can combine practice of both palpation and US-guided modalities would be efficacious in reducing cost to the teaching institutions. We attempted to overcome the access barrier to spinal models by developing an alternative that provides a good simulator for both palpation and US-guided LP while keeping the cost low. Our model can be easily manufactured by not only clinicians but also medical students.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to assess the available research and information on the production and use of simulators for practicing LPs and other spinal procedures. Publications queried described the production of models and utilizing the information compiled we devised and fabricated a model.

Results

A lumbar spine model was developed using computed tomography spine data of an average-sized male patient without lumbar spine pathology. The model was created using medical imaging processing software and printed on 3D printer using nylon plastic. This model was then utilized by residents, advanced practice providers, and medical students for palpation and US-guided LP simulation training.

Conclusions

An inexpensive reusable non-commercial LP simulator can be an effective method for teaching invasive procedures like LPs, especially if it can be used both for palpation and US-guided procedures. The method outlined here can be easily reproduced in a relatively short amount of time. We recognize one limitation in the widespread dissemination of this technique being access to a 3D printer and digital designs for printing. Future studies will be necessary to determine the efficacy of the homemade LP simulator in teaching neurointensivist in training.

Keywords

Lumbar puncture Ultrasonography Education Simulation training Phantoms Imaging Point-of-care systems Models Anatomic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Candace Curry for building us the wooden frames in her woodworking workshop, Dr. Sonum Bharill for being the human spine comparison, and Dr. Casey Glass in inspiring us to create non-commercial simulators through his leadership at the Ultrasound Interest Group at Wake Forest School of Medicine. We would like to acknowledge multiple providers who were willing to try and test our attempt at homemade simulators.

Author contributions

All authors listed were responsible for contributions to conception of the project and implementation of the model, drafting the article or revising it critically, and approved the final manuscript to be published.

Source of support

There was no support for this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval/informed consent

During the course of this work, there was strict adherence to ethical guidelines. Informed consent was obtain from all survey respondants following insitutional guidelines.

References

  1. 1.
    McMillan HJ, Writer H, Moreau KA, et al. Lumbar puncture simulation in pediatric residency training: improving procedural competence and decreasing anxiety. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Caprio T, et al. Simulation-based education with mastery learning improves residents’ lumbar puncture skills. Neurology. 2012;79(2):132–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Safdieh JE, Quick AD, Korb PJ, et al. A dozen years of evolution of neurology clerkships in the United States: looking up. Neurology. 2018;91(15):e1440–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carter JL, Ali II, Isaacson RS, et al. Status of neurology medical school education: results of 2005 and 2012 clerkship director survey. Neurology. 2014;83(19):1761–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CAE Healthcare. Lumbar puncture and spinal epidural training model. 2018. http://www.bluephantom.com/product/Lumbar-Puncture-and-Spinal-Epidural.aspx. Accessed 24 Jan 2018.
  6. 6.
    Uppal V, Kearns RJ, McGrady EM. Evaluation of M43B Lumbar puncture simulator-II as a training tool for identification of the epidural space and lumbar puncture. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(6):493–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faulkner AR, Bourgeois AC, Bradley YC, Pasciak AS. A robust and inexpensive phantom for fluoroscopically guided lumbar puncture training. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(1):54–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellingham GA, Peng PW. A low-cost ultrasound phantom of the lumbosacral spine. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35(3):290–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mashari A, Montealegre-Gallegos M, Jeganathan J, et al. Low-cost three-dimensional printed phantom for neuraxial anesthesia training: development and comparison to a commercial model. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6):e0191664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morrow DS, Cupp JA, Broder JS. Versatile, reusable, and inexpensive ultrasound phantom procedural trainers. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35(4):831–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    West SJ, Mari JM, Khan A, et al. Development of an ultrasound phantom for spinal injections with 3-dimensional printing. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39(5):429–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li JW, Karmakar MK, Li X, Kwok WH, Ngan Kee WD. Gelatin-agar lumbosacral spine phantom: a simple model for learning the basic skills required to perform real-time sonographically guided central neuraxial blocks. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(2):263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soni NJ, Franco-Sadud R, Schnobrich D, et al. Ultrasound guidance for lumbar puncture. Neurol Clin Pract. 2016;6(4):358–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madsen EL, Zagzebski JA, Banjavie RA, Jutila RE. Tissue mimicking materials for ultrasound phantoms. Med Phys. 1978;5(5):391–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vaughan N, Dubey VN, Wee MY, Isaacs R. A review of epidural simulators: where are we today? Med Eng Phys. 2013;35(9):1235–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Millington SJ, Silva Restrepo M, Koenig S. Better with ultrasound: lumbar puncture. Chest. 2018;154(5):1223–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chin KJ, Karmakar MK, Peng P. Ultrasonography of the adult thoracic and lumbar spine for central neuraxial blockade. Anesthesiology. 2011;114(6):1459–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bortman J, Baribeau Y, Jeganathan J, et al. Improving clinical proficiency using a 3-dimensionally printed and patient-specific thoracic spine model as a haptic task trainer. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(8):819–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kwon SY, Hong SH, Kim ES, et al. The efficacy of lumbosacral spine phantom to improve resident proficiency in performing ultrasound-guided spinal procedure. Pain Med. 2015;16(12):2284–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    VanderWielen BA, Harris R, Galgon RE, VanderWielen LM, Schroeder KM. Teaching sonoanatomy to anesthesia faculty and residents: utility of hands-on gel phantom and instructional video training models. J Clin Anesth. 2015;27(3):188–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zivkovic N, van Samkar G, Hermanns H, et al. Face and construct validity of TU-Delft epidural simulator and the value of real-time visualization. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019;44(3):298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adachi K, Yoshimura A, Aso R, et al. Clinical clerkship course for medical students on lumbar puncture using simulators. J Nippon Med Sch. 2012;79(6):430–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clear Ballistics. Clear Ballistics. 2017. https://www.clearballistics.com/about/. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  24. 24.
    Cumberland Rubber Supply. Cumberland Rubber Supply (CRS)—Ballistic Gel. 2017. http://cumberlandrubber.com/gel.html. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  25. 25.
    Environmolds. 20% Clear Ballistic Gwl Blocks. 2017. https://www.artmolds.com/20-perecent-clear-ballistic-block.html. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  26. 26.
    Humimic Medical. Products—humimic medical. 2018. https://humimic.com/. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  27. 27.
    National Institutes of Health. NIH 3D Print Exchange. 2019. https://3dprint.nih.gov/. Accessed 30 Jan 2019.
  28. 28.
    Cheng GZ, San Jose Estepar R, Folch E, et al. Three-dimensional printing and 3D slicer: powerful tools in understanding and treating structural lung disease. Chest. 2016;149(5):1136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitsouras D, Liacouras P, Imanzadeh A, et al. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. Radiographics. 2015;35(7):1965–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Santronics Inc. How much does a 3D printer cost? 2019. https://www.makeshaper.com/3d-printer-cost/. Accessed 30 Jan 2019.
  31. 31.
    Martin CM, Roach VA, Nguyen N, Rice CL, Wilson TD. Comparison of 3D reconstructive technologies used for morphometric research and the translation of knowledge using a decision matrix. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(6):393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ranellucci AL, Joseph. Slic3r–open source 3D printing toolbox. 2019. https://slic3r.org/. Accessed 30 Jan 30 2019.
  33. 33.
    Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al. 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Coordenaçāo do Laboratório Aberto e Parque Tecnológico. InVesalius home. 2017. https://www.cti.gov.br/en/invesalius. Accessed 30 Jan 2019.
  35. 35.
    MakerBot Industries LLC. Thingverse. 2019. https://www.thingiverse.com/. Accessed 30 Jan 2019.
  36. 36.
    Embodi3D LLC. Embodi3D Downloads. 2019. https://www.embodi3d.com/files/. Accesse 30 Jan 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wake Forest University School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyWake Forest Baptist Medical CenterWinston-SalemUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringWake Forest University School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations